RADHAKISAN BALKRISHNADAS RATHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R .S. Shukla The dispute in this case relates to the assessment of deficit stamp duty and the penalty imposed by the Collector of Stamps in regard to a lease executed in favour of the applicant. The point for decision is whether the lease was made for a period of 10 years or for a period of 5 years. The relevant paras, of the lease -deed read as follows:

(2.) THE learned Collector held that the lease was executed for a period of 10 years and found that the Stamp Duty was short by Rs. 255 -8 -0. He imposed a penalty to the tune of 9 times of the short duty and the total amount thus recoverable from the applicant came to Rs. 2,550.

(3.) A reading of the portions of the lease -deed cited above, makes it very clear that although the terms for the second five years were settled in para. 1 of the lease no actual lease for that period came into existence on the date of execution of the deed in question. The Dy. Registrar's report on record shows that an attempt was made by him to cover the alleged lease for the second five years within the meaning of the words "any agreement to let or to sub -let" occurring in Article 35, Schedule I -A of the Stamp Manual. But this view cannot be supported because an agreement is complete only when for an offer there is a corresponding acceptance. Para. 2 of the lease -deed would operate as an offer only on the part of the Lessor and till such time as the Lessee expresses in writing his willingness to renew the lease, the acceptance on the part of the lessee would riot be complete. Thus para. 2 cannot be interpreted as an agreement in law since the offer remained subject to the acceptance of the lessee. The document read as a whole, therefore, indicates that the intention of the lessor and the lessee was to continue the lease only for five years. I, therefore, hold that the view taken by the learned Collector is not correct and the lease in question was executed only for five years.